I talked to the records unit at the Butte County SO yesterday - they said that the new letters going out have an expiration of 60 days, not 30, and that mine was probably one of the last letters that went out with the old number. We signed up for a class at Safer Arms in early April and I think my personal situation is resolved.

In the bigger picture, I think it would be better to have a better-defined policy regarding expiration of the training letter. While I think it does make sense for the letter to expire, given that the two components of CCW eligibility (good cause and good moral character) are both subject to change with the passage of time, I think 30 days is too short (and, apparently, the SO has come to think so, too.)

By way of comparison, attorney licensing also requires a determination of good moral character. When the CA Bar makes a determination that an applicant is of good moral character, that determination is good for 36 months before it must be renewed.

While I don't think that it makes sense for the training letter to be valid indefinitely (the CCW itself is only valid for 2 years), I think it would make a lot more sense to say that the license must be issued by date "X", rather than saying that someone must complete registration for training prior to date "X". I don't have any reason to think anything bad about anyone at Safer Arms, but I'm not very comfortable with letting the time period expire before I have completed the training - what if the instructor dies, or goes on vacation, or the range closes or has a fire, or the instructor and I don't get along with each other? What if the training org decides to triple their prices after the letter expires?

If the concern is that someone will be eligible today, get a training authorization, then commit a bunch of crimes and get rid of the parts of their life that created good cause, and then go get their permit with stale/expired GC/MC, it doesn't make sense to say that the training org can extend the issue period indefinitely - that doesn't really address the underlying concern. It makes it a little tougher for the applicant, versus just putting the letter in their sock drawer and getting it out 10 years later, but if we're really concerned that unqualified people are going to get licensed, we can/should do better than that.

FYI, when we registered at Safer Arms for the class, they wanted to keep the original of the training authorization letter.

__________________
"[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box . . without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." -- Frederick Douglass (1892)

When he says "Yes", the only way I believe it can lawfully become "NO" is for you to be a prohibited person or permanently move out of state.

Right, I completely agree. It is odd to have a time frame involved. I was not aware of it until I received the letter. If brings up a lot of "what if's."

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakdawg

I talked to the records unit at the Butte County SO yesterday - they said that the new letters going out have an expiration of 60 days, not 30, and that mine was probably one of the last letters that went out with the old number. We signed up for a class at Safer Arms in early April and I think my personal situation is resolved.

In the bigger picture, I think it would be better to have a better-defined policy regarding expiration of the training letter. While I think it does make sense for the letter to expire, given that the two components of CCW eligibility (good cause and good moral character) are both subject to change with the passage of time, I think 30 days is too short (and, apparently, the SO has come to think so, too.)

By way of comparison, attorney licensing also requires a determination of good moral character. When the CA Bar makes a determination that an applicant is of good moral character, that determination is good for 36 months before it must be renewed.

While I don't think that it makes sense for the training letter to be valid indefinitely (the CCW itself is only valid for 2 years), I think it would make a lot more sense to say that the license must be issued by date "X", rather than saying that someone must complete registration for training prior to date "X". I don't have any reason to think anything bad about anyone at Safer Arms, but I'm not very comfortable with letting the time period expire before I have completed the training - what if the instructor dies, or goes on vacation, or the range closes or has a fire, or the instructor and I don't get along with each other? What if the training org decides to triple their prices after the letter expires?

If the concern is that someone will be eligible today, get a training authorization, then commit a bunch of crimes and get rid of the parts of their life that created good cause, and then go get their permit with stale/expired GC/MC, it doesn't make sense to say that the training org can extend the issue period indefinitely - that doesn't really address the underlying concern. It makes it a little tougher for the applicant, versus just putting the letter in their sock drawer and getting it out 10 years later, but if we're really concerned that unqualified people are going to get licensed, we can/should do better than that.

FYI, when we registered at Safer Arms for the class, they wanted to keep the original of the training authorization letter.

I talked to the records unit at the Butte County SO yesterday - they said that the new letters going out have an expiration of 60 days, not 30, and that mine was probably one of the last letters that went out with the old number. We signed up for a class at Safer Arms in early April and I think my personal situation is resolved.

In the bigger picture, I think it would be better to have a better-defined policy regarding expiration of the training letter. While I think it does make sense for the letter to expire, given that the two components of CCW eligibility (good cause and good moral character) are both subject to change with the passage of time, I think 30 days is too short (and, apparently, the SO has come to think so, too.)

By way of comparison, attorney licensing also requires a determination of good moral character. When the CA Bar makes a determination that an applicant is of good moral character, that determination is good for 36 months before it must be renewed.

While I don't think that it makes sense for the training letter to be valid indefinitely (the CCW itself is only valid for 2 years), I think it would make a lot more sense to say that the license must be issued by date "X", rather than saying that someone must complete registration for training prior to date "X". I don't have any reason to think anything bad about anyone at Safer Arms, but I'm not very comfortable with letting the time period expire before I have completed the training - what if the instructor dies, or goes on vacation, or the range closes or has a fire, or the instructor and I don't get along with each other? What if the training org decides to triple their prices after the letter expires?

If the concern is that someone will be eligible today, get a training authorization, then commit a bunch of crimes and get rid of the parts of their life that created good cause, and then go get their permit with stale/expired GC/MC, it doesn't make sense to say that the training org can extend the issue period indefinitely - that doesn't really address the underlying concern. It makes it a little tougher for the applicant, versus just putting the letter in their sock drawer and getting it out 10 years later, but if we're really concerned that unqualified people are going to get licensed, we can/should do better than that.

FYI, when we registered at Safer Arms for the class, they wanted to keep the original of the training authorization letter.

I apologize if I seem to be belaboring these rather small issues, but I think it is important to encourage the Sheriff to conform to the law regardless of the percieved significance of the details.

First, the letter an applicant recieves from an issuing agency informing of a positive determination is a letter of approval. The Sheriff has no authority to authorize when you get your training. You don't need anyone's permission. Potentially, you can go get your training before you get your approval letter, but this defeats the purpose of not being required to pay for and recieve training in advance of the issuing agencies determination.

Second, the Sheriff's statutory discretion is limited. Under the law, the Sheriff can deny for residency, good moral character, and good cause. Nowhere in the law, does it say that the Sheriff can place conditions on issuance like expirations on your approval. It is the opposite,... the Sheriff's approval cannot expire- and it can only be altered by statutory disqualification.

If you think that it is reasonable to expect an issuing agency to apply a time limit on training or place any number of conditions on issuance of a license, then you must believe that the agency has unlimited discretion and should be allowed to make up rules without the legislature's guidance.

As I have already pointed out, if an applicant is involved in a disqualifying event, such as commiting a crime, or being adjudicated as mentally ill (say, between the time the applicant is approved and the license is issued) the DOJ will inform the issuing agency that the applicant is a prohibited person, and the license would be revoked or invalidated.

I think it would be interesting to apply and recieve approval and return with a training certificate after their 'training authorization' letter expired. It would give a new meaning to suing ever m-f'r in the room and make every rural county's bean-counter pucker.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Well, picked up my CCW today. Was a little less than impressed with the course at Safer Arms. I will be looking around for an instructor that can help with some better tactical scenarios. Altogether, a fairly easy process... Still, an unnecessary process...

I applied about 4 weeks ago, and still have a few weeks left to wait. I understand that they might not be 100% to the letter of the law, but the process seems simple and painless compared to other counties, such as say Marin.

I would also strongly recommend Caleb at Flying Brass. Caleb goes above and beyond what is legally required, and it is worth every penny. Being new to Handguns, and really not having any gun friends, I have emailed Caleb a few times for silly questions, and have helped me out quite a bit. He is truly a gun guy. He has also chatted with me on the phone as well, and even offered to show me proper form and trigger control... for free. Any shooting Instructor who is willing to help a new guy out is great in my book. I will be using him for sure.

I think it would be interesting to apply and recieve approval and return with a training certificate after their 'training authorization' letter expired. It would give a new meaning to suing ever m-f'r in the room and make every rural county's bean-counter pucker.

CitaDel, while I applaud your enthusiasm, the Sheriff here seems to be a real friend to the Second Amendment and I think he's just trying to make the process as painless as possible.

Two years ago, you took the class first and then applied for the permit. I suspect what happened is that some people who were disqualified took the class and then got upset that they'd spent the time and money (and took up slots in classes that other people might have had) and gotten turned down.

So, to save everybody a lot of grief, I think they decided people should apply first, so you haven't spent the time and money on the class if you're just going to get turned down. But, they're also savvy enough to know that if they don't put an expiration date on it they'll eventually have somebody in their office waving a five year old letter and making a scene.

So, I think they just picked 30 days out of a hat, not realizing that it's actually kind of tough to get scheduled in 30 days. So now they've extended it to 60, and really, I doubt they'd give you trouble if you walked in with a letter that's a couple of weeks expired. They're good guys, really, they're not trying to trip you up, in fact they're very friendly and helpful over the phone about what to put on the application. It seems like if you're a law-abiding citizen they want you to have the permit, and it shows in both their words and their actions.

CitaDel, while I applaud your enthusiasm, the Sheriff here seems to be a real friend to the Second Amendment and I think he's just trying to make the process as painless as possible.

Two years ago, you took the class first and then applied for the permit. I suspect what happened is that some people who were disqualified took the class and then got upset that they'd spent the time and money (and took up slots in classes that other people might have had) and gotten turned down.

So, to save everybody a lot of grief, I think they decided people should apply first, so you haven't spent the time and money on the class if you're just going to get turned down. But, they're also savvy enough to know that if they don't put an expiration date on it they'll eventually have somebody in their office waving a five year old letter and making a scene.

So, I think they just picked 30 days out of a hat, not realizing that it's actually kind of tough to get scheduled in 30 days. So now they've extended it to 60, and really, I doubt they'd give you trouble if you walked in with a letter that's a couple of weeks expired. They're good guys, really, they're not trying to trip you up, in fact they're very friendly and helpful over the phone about what to put on the application. It seems like if you're a law-abiding citizen they want you to have the permit, and it shows in both their words and their actions.

Out of 58 Sheriffs in California, there is no "shall issue" advocate. If one were to find a real 'friend' to the second amendment, we would find that they would either follow California statute as it is applicable to carry licenses (which is their minimum duty to oblige) or they would adopt an even more permissive policy than the law outlines (such as approving any person who is not prohibited to possess a firearm). Since the Butte County Sheriff has not done either of these things, one may correctly assume that he has no intention of being anything other than 'may' issue. He further compounds this by enforcing policies that have no basis in law that exceed his authority. In addition to the expiration of the approval letter, these pop out as unlawful...

Quote:

3. Age requirement

A. Must be at least twenty one (21) years of age.

4. Proof of Residency

A. Bring a copy of your rental agreement, tax bill, utility bill,or other forms showing your main residence is in the County of Butte

There is no such age requirement in the statute (an applicant need only be 18) and applicants may not be required to provide any forms other than the standard application.

Reform comes in two forms. One is willingly. The other, no Sheriff is immune from- even if they hang their hat at the gun club and have a lifetime membership with the NRA. They are still obligated to follow the law.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Dob's class is thourough and he is a real pro. Butte County Sheriff's office are great people. Take your class certificate and targets to the office pay your fees and your are good to go for two years.

__________________A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Side note on the process to renew or add a firearm: if you're a current CCW holder, there's no need to fill out a whole new application. Just call the sheriff's office, they'll run your name again and send you out a training letter.

I'm not going to argue about the "training letter" thing. This is the last I'll say on the topic: I don't know Jerry Smith. I've never met the man let alone done him any favors, I'm not in any sort of special "sheriff's auxiliary" or anything other than an ordinary citizen with a clean record, yet the process was painless and hassle-free, in fact his staff has been downright helpful. Would I rather he had an explicit "shall-issue" policy? Of course I would. But as far as I'm concerned the problem is sheriffs who who don't issue at all, or who only issue permits in exchange for large donations or political favors, not a guy who's on record as stating that ordinary law-abiding citizens should have the means to defend themselves but thinks the process would be a little smoother if it were run a little differently.

But as far as I'm concerned the problem is sheriffs who who don't issue at all, or who only issue permits in exchange for large donations or political favors, not a guy who's on record as stating that ordinary law-abiding citizens should have the means to defend themselves but thinks the process would be a little smoother if it were run a little differently.

Good. If he is on the record as stating that ordinary law-abiding citizens should have the means to defend themselves, then he won't mind reviewing the statute and reforming his policies to comply with it.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Applied on 9-18-12 received my letter on the 29th...eleven days! I was really surprised it was so fast. Now I just need to get into a class to finish this thing. I wanted to use Chico Rod & Gun but they don't seem to return emails and the phone number they have does not take messages. Looks like I will be using Safer Arms.

Just to follow up, I found out with Chico Rod & Gun you just show up at 5:30-6:00 pm on the first or third Friday of the month and take the CCW class (you can also sign up for Saturday classes). I took the class yesterday, 40 bucks (two guns), great class, great people, done deal. I go in to BCSO on Monday to get my permit. It will be 20 days from application to permit in hand. $25 bucks cheaper than Safer Arms and no arrogance to deal with!

__________________
Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, "the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

I have a quick question about CCW. I live in Chico (actually in the city, not an unincorporated area). If I was interested in getting a CCW, would I still be able to apply through the County, or do I need to go the the City to do this?

I have a quick question about CCW. I live in Chico (actually in the city, not an unincorporated area). If I was interested in getting a CCW, would I still be able to apply through the County, or do I need to go the the City to do this?

The process is through the county sheriff, regardless of where you live, as long as its Butte County.

__________________
"We were free until we stopped fighting, now no one has freedom." - Chief Tawonka

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."-Capo

Do I need to bring all my info in when I fill out the application? Thinking about going in this Friday.

Bring your application, ID, and proof of residency to the Sheriff's office. They'll have you confirm the typed-up rice paper, and then you'll do the LiveScan and be told to wait however many weeks/months it takes to process the paperwork.

If cleared, you'll be sent a letter notifying you to complete the training and qualification to get your permit.

You have been misinformed sir. B.C.S.O. still only requires a 4 hour course. And 10 rounds shot per handgun to be added to your permit. Unfortunately Down Range is petitioning the new appointed (not elected) sheriff to increase the class fee to $175 from $65 (at Safer Arms), increase rounds to be fired to 150, shooting to be done dominant hand, weak hand, prone, lying on back, ect. The new sheriff and one of the owners of Down Range used to work together at the D.A.s office as investigators. I'm all for more training. But to try to change requirements just to suit your business needs is wrong! Down Range (dr) is not providing a superior product or service. So instead of competeing with other local providers they are trying to legislate out the competition. If you want to take a longer class with more rounds shot from varying positions, so be it. But these new requirements make the Butte Co. C.C.W. permits harder to access for people of lower incomes. Jerry Smith (the previous sheriff) lowered the rounds to qualify from 30 to 10 to make the process accessible to everyone who qualified due to cost and availablity of ammo in the last year or so. Please get your facts straight before posting something like this. I realize you had good intentions. But this stuff is very important. What you posted was little more then propaganda fed to you by your instructor at d.r. who has a dog in this fight. While it may become the truth if d.r. is successful in changing the requirements, its not the truth yet. I for one am boycotting d.r. for this underhanded move. I am not meaning any disrespect. Just trying to make the facts known. Good luck to you and your new C.C.W.

You have been misinformed sir. B.C.S.O. still only requires a 4 hour course. And 10 rounds shot per handgun to be added to your permit. Unfortunately Down Range is petitioning the new appointed (not elected) sheriff to increase the class fee to $175 from $65 (at Safer Arms), increase rounds to be fired to 150, shooting to be done dominant hand, weak hand, prone, lying on back, ect. The new sheriff and one of the owners of Down Range used to work together at the D.A.s office as investigators. I'm all for more training. But to try to change requirements just to suit your business needs is wrong! Down Range (dr) is not providing a superior product or service. So instead of competeing with other local providers they are trying to legislate out the competition. If you want to take a longer class with more rounds shot from varying positions, so be it. But these new requirements make the Butte Co. C.C.W. permits harder to access for people of lower incomes. Jerry Smith (the previous sheriff) lowered the rounds to qualify from 30 to 10 to make the process accessible to everyone who qualified due to cost and availablity of ammo in the last year or so. Please get your facts straight before posting something like this. I realize you had good intentions. But this stuff is very important. What you posted was little more then propaganda fed to you by your instructor at d.r. who has a dog in this fight. While it may become the truth if d.r. is successful in changing the requirements, its not the truth yet. I for one am boycotting d.r. for this underhanded move. I am not meaning any disrespect. Just trying to make the facts known. Good luck to you and your new C.C.W.

Powermad- please check your facts Sir. Upon the retirement of Sheriff Perry Reniff, who retitred before his last term ended and who preceded Sheriff Smith, Sheriff Smith was appointed to fill the remainder of Sheriff Reniff's term by the Board of Supervisors. Sheriff Smith then ran for, was elected to, and served one four-year term of his own. He ran unopposed for the most part. Upon the announcement that Sheriff Smith would not seek a second four year term of his own, Undersheriff Honea ran and was elected to his first four-year term which he is now serving.

Powermad- please check your facts Sir. Upon the retirement of Sheriff Perry Reniff, who retitred before his last term ended and who preceded Sheriff Smith, Sheriff Smith was appointed to fill the remainder of Sheriff Reniff's term by the Board of Supervisors. Sheriff Smith then ran for, was elected to, and served one four-year term of his own. He ran unopposed for the most part. Upon the announcement that Sheriff Smith would not seek a second four year term of his own, Undersheriff Honea ran and was elected to his first four-year term which he is now serving.

Kory Honea was elected sheriff in June. There will not be a runoff next month.

Since he was running unopposed and Jerry Smith wanted to retire, the Board of Supervisors also appointed Honea in late May.

Since the term actually starts in January 2015, I suppose he's still technically the appointed sheriff until then.

Hes still technically appointed. As stated above. This wasnt the point of my reply. The point I was getting at was d.r. pushing their own C.C.W. agenda. I have zero issues with Sherrif Honea so far. It is a shame to see d.r.'s position on this. I was excited to get a nice new range in town. One where we can shoot rifles indoors and on my end of town no less. But I cant support a range that doesnt support us as a shooting community. As you know, our rights and privledges are precious and few these days. Being eroded by the minute. The type of qualification being proposed by d.r. is law enforcement style. We as permit holders are trained to avoid an incident. This kind of training might send the wrong message to a select few. If we as a county were failing miserably during qualification or we had incidents envolving C.C.W. permit holders sending wild stray bullets downrange during a gun fight, then maybe. Extra and advanced training should always be sought out by a individual I believe. But still left up to the individual as long as they meet the criteria. But to try and change B.C.S.O. standards and force your agenda on our wonderful county is a dirt bag move usually reserved for politicians. Not something I would expect from the gun community. It is my opinion that we as a county should send a strong message to d.r. by boycotting them until they back off. I think they actually had a decent idea by offering an alternative to the other courses offered. A longer, more involved course for those who CHOOSE it is a good thing. But attempting to change standards to fit their greed isnt. Just one mans opinion.

No matter how Honea got to be sheriff.. at the end of the day what Down Range is trying to push and propose is nothing short of despicable in my opinion.
Down Range is a great idea and a nice new range but their push for the new changes for us Butte county residents to get CCW is a purely greed driven socialist move. Just the opinion of one gun owning/gun loving mothers opinion. The new proposed change is a money grabbing move not the move of people trying to better our local gun community.
I like how some above just target one comment on how Honea was elected and ignore the statements that were wrongly posted about the current actual requirements of CCW license in our county.

Very well put! Its nice to hear a womans perspective on this issue. This is something our local gun community needs to be aware of. The socialist aspect was a nice touch. I guess d.r. didnt think they could compete with the local providers, so why not propose legislation to level the playing field to their ends?

my CCW application was recently denied. I had an arrest 26 years ago ( Charge was dismissed ) that I had forgotten about. My application was denied due to not including this. My question is can I re-apply making sure to add this information, or should I just forget about it? Also if I re-apply how long should I wait. I have been searching and have not really found any info that helps. I can appeal the decision, but doubt it will help.
This is for Butte county.

I am hoping for someone with knowledge to give me some advice or opinions.

Hello dr67. Sorry to hear that you were denied. I don't have any personal knowledge of how to go about this. But my first move would be to contact the S.O. and speak to records about the denial. If that lead to nothing, I would see about making an appointment with the Sheriff himself to explain your situation personally. Just my two cents. Worst he could say is no. And then you are no worse off then you are now. Nothing ventured, nothing gained type of situation. Maybe someone else will chime in with some more personal knowledge.

I offer the following, as I am a former resident of butte county, and may once again call it my home.
I obtained my ccw in Tulare county. A very pro issue county.
I was not required to prove any qualification of firearm proficiency.
finding that kinda interesting. I asked the nice lady processing my app, why(?).
she said it had to do w/ liability on the counties behalf. Good enough for me! and I beat feet outta there. the good folks at BCSO might want ponder that a bit, before assuring their applicants odds of eliminating a perpetrator, who"s families WILL have a gung ho lawyer

The embedded link to the .pdf (APPLICATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE Effective January 9, 2014) does NOT say anything (that I saw), re. acceptable and unacceptable GC, or anything at all about GC....

Why doesn't the sheriff just state on his website that SD is sufficient GC??? IIRC, Sacto, San Joaquin, Fresno, Stanislaus, Ventura and Orange counties all do!

Turned in my app about a month ago with Butte SO. Wrote 2 sentences stating my reason. I’ll let you guys know how it works out. As for the letter, Safer Arme’s doesn’t require the letter anymore to take the class and the class is good for 6 months (I was there today). Not sure about the others. I’ll let you guys know how it works out.

As for DR, they seem nice enough but it’s pricy. Most expensive range in town, most expensive guns, transfers etc. I think they hate me. I go there and window shop then buy else ware. They just aren’t competitive, even locally.